Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: eddiek on December 20, 2001, 10:03:00 AM
-
Okay, I know someone posted this some time back, but I cannot find the search feature anymore.....so..........
One guy in the MA this morning asked a question I did not have a good answer for..he asked when the Spit XIV was introduced, and then asked when the 109G10 was introduced.
I am not sure, all I can find on either is early 1944, so when he asked "Why don't we have the XIV then?" all I could do was sit there. I know it is not up to me, it is Pyro and HiTech's decision on when and what planes are introduced. But, ya know, his question does make sense.
All the figures I have found on the Spit XIV indicate it would be on par with the G10 we have, which is 12-24 mph faster than the "commonly" listed top speeds of the G10. Before you LW lovers get your leather panties in a wad, I am not saying that some G10's were not equipped with the engine Pyro chose to model in the AH 109G10. No doubt, there were. I have no idea what portion of the G10's were so equipped, and I guess it does not matter, we have one that does 440TAS per someone's tests, the charts show nearer 450......
Okay, now to the meat of my post.....can anyone give a rational explanation or justification as to why people insist that if the Spit XIV is introduced in AH, it "has" to be perked?
From my viewpoint, and I am definitely NOT a Spit lover, it makes not sense to perk a Spitfire that is just "even" with the 109G10 and 190D9.
Here is a link I found that gives a nice description of the Spit XIV, and trials against the Spit IX, the Mustang III, and the 190 and 109: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html)
Click on the links at the bottom of the page.......more data there....
-
The Spitfire F.MkXIVc entered service with 610 Squadron on January 2, 1944. The first kill with a Spitfire F.MkXIVc came in March, 1944.
We don't have the Spit XIV beacause the Spitfire F.MkIX is already the best plane in AH! :p
OK, that isn't true. But the Spit IX does get the most usage. HTC will add the Spit XIV when they feel like it.
The Spit XIV will be the earliest aircraft to be perked. I hope that it only costs about 30 points, but it is entirely possible that it could cost 70 or more.
-
"it "has" to be perked?"
Planes aren't perked based on introduction dates. They're perked if they don't fit well with the planeset.
A lowly 1942 Spit IX is the most common plane in the MA. A 1944 Spit 14 has all the advantages of the Spit IX (turning ability, easygoing departure behavior, hispanos) and also could out-run, out-climb, and out-dive almost anything currently unperked in the arena.
Some people want an LA7 perked. Now just imagine a longer-range, hispano-armed LA7 that could turn with a Spit 9......and you have a plane which more or less HAS to be perked.
Change the type of fighting being done and perhaps the Spit 14 wouldn't look so good. Maybe, when it's added, it wouldn't need to be perked in say the CT. It's just that, for the type of fighting being done in the MA, the Spit 14 is dominant.
J_A_B
-
Interesting replies...... :)
I respectfully disagree with ya JAB, however, based on my own opinion. What Karnak said is true, the Spit is the most common plane I see in the MA, in part, IMHO, to it's ease in getting kills. Heck, even I can get kills in it. :D As a matter of fact, anytime I take one up, I KNOW I will get at least one kill, likely two or more. I have never been one who can run up multiple kills, I do not have the patience. :p I charge off into the fray most of the time, end up getting a few kills, then the "greed" sets in and I end up dead.
Maybe I am wrong in my way of thinking, but the way I see it, no plane is untouchable, unless the pilot is already smart and knows how to get the most out of the plane. Take a G10 for instance: Featherweight airframe, in AH a great engine, good acceleration, and it will climb great. Flown correctly, the plane is untouchable. For nonperked planes, the P51 and 190D9 are the only two that even near it in terms of top speed, and it blows both away in the climb category. So, like I said, if the pilot flies it smart, it is "untouchable", as is any plane if the pilot pays attention to what he is doing. Likewise, any plane can be killed if the pilot does not fly it to it's strengths.
Taking a G10 into a low level fight and trying to turn with a Spit is stupid. You do that and you are just inviting the other guy to shoot you down.
I guess I was looking at the performance numbers of the planes. Just looking at those, it would seem a crock to perk the XIV while the Ponies, 109G10, and 190D9 remained unperked. All are within 10mph of one another in top speed, with the G10 and the XIV being too close to call IMO in climb. The Ponies and the D9 are close in that category, and are a good match. Not sure which of those two outturns the other, but I think they are a pretty close match there, aren't they?
All I am doing is playing devil's advocate here. I "might" fly the XIV if they introduced it, but not much as I am not a Spit fan. The one perk ride you would see me burning my points on would be the one ride I do not see HTC introducing for a LONG time......the P47M. ;)
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=002701 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=002701)
-
Thanks Staga........did not see that thread...
So, the Spit XIV entered service or combat in March '44, seven months before the G10?
Interesting......... :p
-
Staga my favorite is the middle part of Echoes on the Live at Pompeii recording. :)
-
I don't know if a Spit14 would turn with a Spit9, but generally, the tendency of aircraft evolution is to become faster and more powerful, while gradually losing pure turning ability - attribute which was very important in the 'traditional' style of aircombat introduced in WWI.
So I'm guessing Spit14 would probably fall within the line, and it won't turn as good as a Spit9. But considering most other competent aircraft in MA, I think if Spit14 is introduced, it will make every other sort of plane obsolete.
In my opinion, P-51, 190D-9s, 109G10-s, while untouchable, all have a distinct disadvantage in certain parts of performance which acts as a preventor to destroying game balance. The low alt performance and climb rate sucks in 51, which prevents them from being dominant in MA style furballs, and limits their kills to high alt fights or advantageous vulching. 190D-9s are pretty much simular. G-10s have horrible high speed control, therefore only about 80% of its potential speed is used in tense combat, making it pretty vulnerable for a short time. (Of course, running away is something different...)
They may have high survival rate, but they certainly ain't easy to "fly".
On the other there's a plane faster than the 109G-10(which has the highest top speed in HTC charts except Me262 and Ta152), outturns about every aircraft capable of speed over 400 mph, turns a little bit worse than a SpitIX.
Why should anyone fly any other plane? I mean, the folks who don't have a distinct preference for a certain plane type, and just pick the easiest ones to fly, enjoy and get kills in (the usual people who consist the MA furballs :rolleyes: ). The basis of reasons against perking La-7s were that it had a weakness of some sort. Performance problem at alts.
What sort of weaknesses would a Spit14 have? :confused:
In regards to balance, I definately think we need a SpitXIV, and I definately think it needs to be perked... and after early/mid war plane set is finished, D9, G10, 51D and La-7 should all be perked, too.
....
-
Well, being mostly an axis flyer I should not say it .... but the Spit XIV should not be perked for the same reason the Dora, the G-10, the La7 and the P-51D are not.
*If* the Spitfire XIV is the best WW2 fighter, I mean of the whole 1941 -> mid 1945 and fantasy prop/jets apart, it is not his fault. We should accept it.
I'm still waiting a valid reason why we dont have the XIV and why it should be perked. Is the USAF/USN lobby scared? ;) I hope not. BTW, the Warbirds MkXIV is not unbeatable.
That said, whers my 1,750hp, 3 cannons armed, even perked, G.56? :)
-
I don't know where people are getting the idea that the Spit XIV would aout perform eveything besides the 262 in every way. It'll be dang good true, but it isn't THAT fast until you get really high.
Here is a quick comparison:
Deck speeds:
Me262A-1: 515mph on the deck (200 perks)
Tempest MkV: 385mph on the deck (70 perks)
La-7: 382mph on the deck (0 perks)
F4U-4 Corsair: 377mph on the deck (60 perks)
Fw190D-9: 376mph on the deck (0 perks)
Typhoon MkIb: 372mph on the deck (0 perks)
Bf109G-10: 370mph on the deck (0 perks)
P-51D Mustang: 367mph on the deck (0 perks)
P-51B Mustang: 364mph on the deck (0 perks)
Ta152H-1: 363mph on the deck (30 perks)
Yak-9U: 358mph on the deck (0 perks)
Spitfire F.MkXIVc: 357mph on the deck (TBD perks)
Best speeds:
Me262A-1: 540mph at 19,000ft
Ta152H-1: 460mph at 30,000ft (AH chart ends at that altitude)
Bf109G-10: 452mph at 22,000ft
Spitfire F.MkXIVc: 448mph at 27,000ft
P-51B Mustang: 442mph at 28,000ft
F4U-4 Corsair: 438mph at 25,000ft
P-51D Mustang: 437mph at 24,000ft
Tempest MkV: 432mph at 16,000ft
Fw190D-9: 432mph at 17,000ft
Yak-9U: 420mph at 16,000ft
La-7: 417mph at 20,000ft
Typhoon MkIb: 416mph at 17,000ft
Initial climb rates:
Bf109G-10: 4,700ft per min
Spitfire F.MkXIVc: 4,580ft per min
Tempest MkV: 4,550ft per min
La-7: 4,500ft per min
Fw190D-9: 4,050ft per min
Me262A-1: 3,900ft per min
F4U-4 Corsair: 3,700ft per min
Yak-9U: 3,600ft per min
Ta152H-1: 3,550ft per min
P-51D Mustang: 3,500ft per min
Typhoon MkIb: 3,400ft per min
P-51B Mustang: 3,300ft per min
My estimates of their turn capabilities:
1: Yak-9U
2: Spitfire F.MkXIVc
3: La-7
4: P-51B Mustang
5: P-51D Mustang
6: F4U-4 Corsair
7: Tempest MkV
8: Typhoon MkIb
9: Bf109G-10
10: Ta152H-1
11: Me262A-1
12: Fw190D-9
Numbers built:
Yak-9U: Gobs
P-51D Mustang: Gobs
La-7: Gobs
Typhoon MkIb: 3,500 or so
P-51B Mustang: Lots
Bf109G-10: Lots?
Me262A-1: 1,300 or so
Spitfire MkXIV: 957
Fw190D-9: 800 or so
Tempest MkV Series 2: 705
Ta-152H1: 50-150
F4U-4 Corsair: ???
Firepower estimates:
1: Me262A-1
2: Tempest MkV
3: Typhoon MkIb
4: Ta152H-1
5: Spitfire MkXIV
6: Fw190D-9
7: La-7
8: F4U-4 Corsair
9: P-51D Mustang
10: Bf109G-10
11: P-51B Mustang
12: Yak-9U
There are many other factors as well favoring various aircraft. WEP duration, fuel endurance, durability, visibility, Perk aircraft icon, dive capability, high speed handling, ect, ect.
EDIT:
Gatt,
The MkXIV needs to be perked for arena balance, the same reason that the F4U-1C needed to be perked. Hopefully it will be also be affordable.
[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
[ 12-21-2001: Message edited by: F4UDOA ]
-
Ok ok! I confess :D
To tell you the truth,my idea on what I imagine a Spit XIV would be is probably biased by the name "Spitfire". And as a result, the estimates of turning capabilities by Karnak is quite shocking.
The deepest, inner most fear I have comes from my childhoo...er.. Fighter Aces 2 days. No matter how funky the FM was, the Jolly Green GBR Giants and their SpitXIV hoarde was by far the most annoying set of bozos I've ever seen... and naturally, I shudder at the sight of AH becoming a SpitXIV slug fest.
All my experiences with Spit14 comes from either boxed games like EAW(which was heavily "Spit Oriented"), or cranky FMs by FA2. All the SpitXIV I've seen there turned like Spit9s. Only planes that could out turn it were 109F4 and A6M2 Zero. They were a bane to most pilots flying LW or USAAF, the freaking super easy "point-and-shoot" plane which would just hurl itself turning to your direction, just won't come off from your tail whatever you do what ever ACM you try, and you can't even run away from it.
If what Karnak says is true, the Spit seems like it would be a faster Yak-9U, and seems it definately wouldn't turn like a Spit9. (It turns worse than the Yak-9U... the Yak-9U in MA certainly isn't a good turner, maybe an average one...).
In that case :rolleyes: I have no objections if it came out unperked.
What I imagine when I hear "SpitXIV" is a 450 mph N1K2-J that climbs as good as a 109G-10. If it ain't so, no big deal then.
(Geez, I feel I'm being very shallow here :D )
-
One question, Karnak.
How did you get the estimated result that a Spit14 would turn worse than a Yak-9U? :confused:
-
Pilots said SpitXIV wasnt really really a spit anymore, it handled much diffrent from the others it wasnt as good there.
-
Remember that we have THREE Spitfires, the Spit V, Seafire IIB, and the Spit IX, so when you say it's very popular it doesn't necessarily mean that they are all Spit IXs!
I for one hope the Spit XIV isn't perked because all the other RAF fighter aircraft are either perked (Tempest) or 1941/42 aircraft (not classing the Mossie as a fighter! - additionally the Typhoon IB we have has a late style canopy, but it's basically an early 1942 aircraft).
Regards
Nexx
-
Hi everyone,
here's a link to a comparison of the Spitfire XIV to the Spitfire IX:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html)
Conclusions:
- "The turning circles of both aircraft are identical."
- "Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Mk IX."
However, with 8400 lbs take-off weight the Mk XIV was 1000 lbs heavier than a Mk IX, so I think neither sustained turning circle nor instantaneous turning circle can't have matched that of the Mk IX. British WW2 reports generally failed to distinguish between turning circle and turn rate, and I guess the observation really was that the Spitfire Mk XIV's turn rate was equal to that of the Mk IX (thanks to its better power loading).
In any case, judging from real-world figures, the Spitfire XIV is still slower than the Fw 190D-9 below 20000 ft, and slower than the Me 109K-4 below 25000 ft. The balance should be about the same as that of earlier Spitfire variants against earlier Focke-Wulf and Messerschmitt variants.
The impact the Spitfire XIV might have on the Aces High arena can be estimated from the impact it had on the WB.de 2.01 arena: Hardly any. Surprising? At the first glance, yes! However, I'm convinced the reason is that dedicated Spitfire pilots don't choose their aircraft for performance. They choose it for manoeuvrability alone - and so the vast majority of all Spitfires were Mk IXs, no matter whether the Mk XIV was currently available in the RPS or not.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
As I recall there were also a considerable number of complaints that the WB's Spit 14 was neutered for gameplay purposes.
J_A_B
-
Hi Jab,
>As I recall there were also a considerable number of complaints that the WB's Spit 14 was neutered for gameplay purposes.
I think the complaints indicate the same overestimation of the Spitfire XIV as the fear it would dominate the arena if left unperked :-)
From test flights of the WB 2.01 Spitfire XIV, I'd say that at low level - where on WB.de all of the fighting took place, and where Spitfires are commonly found - it reached just the speeds and climb rates quoted in the Boscombe Down report.
It didn't turn as well as the Spitfire IX, but considering it was 1000 lbs heavier with the same wing, I think that's exactly what one should expect. (The notorious weight increase from the Me 109F-4 to the Me 109G-6 is less than 1000 lbs, for comparison :-)
That said, the Spitfire XIV is an excellent aircraft, and one that I personally think is much more potent than the Spitfire IX.
It's just that most Spitfire pilots fly the Spitfire IX for its specific strengths, which they don't recognize in the Spitfire XIV.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I too believe that the WB's Spit XIV had something done to it. My personal feeling is that it was closer to the 109K4 in terms of overall maneuverability than the Spit IX.
-
Kweassa,
Those were just crude gestimations as far as turn rat went. Other than the turn rate and firepower estimates all of that was based on solid numbers.
The Spit XIV will need to be a perk plane, its performance is that good in the MA context. Somebody said that pilots prefeered the MkIX. That is not entirely true. The general consensus of pilots is that the MkIX was much nicer to fly, but that the MkXIV was a much better warplane.
The empty weight of a Spitfire F.MkIX is 5,800lbs.
The take off weight of a Spitfire F.MkIX is 7,295lbs.
The max overload weight of a Spitfire F.MkIX is 9,500lbs.
The empty weight of a Sptfire F.MkXIV is 6,576lbs.
The take off weight of a Spitfire F.MkXIV is 8,475lbs.
The max overload weight of a Spitfire F.MkXIV is 10,280lbs.
-
Hi Sagefin,
>My personal feeling is that it was closer to the 109K4 in terms of overall maneuverability than the Spit IX.
The Spitfire XIV combined a 14% weight increase with an approximate 24% power increase over the Mk IX (depending on the subversion).
The Me 109K-4 combined a 15% weight increase with a 33% (or better) power increase over the Me 109F-4.
The Spitfire did indeed take the same road to performance as the Messerschmitt :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Karnak,
>Somebody said that pilots prefeered the MkIX. That is not entirely true. The general consensus of pilots is that the MkIX was much nicer to fly, but that the MkXIV was a much better warplane.
Let me point out that I absolutely agree with you here.
I was talking about online pilots only: If you only have one life to lose, you tend to choose your favourite fighter after different criteria.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Consider:
The Spit XIV had a lower stall speed than the Spit IX.
" In spite of heavier controls the Spitfire XIV is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire VIII in turns at all heights."
"The Spitfire XIV is superior above 25,000 and with its better turning characteristics it is more than a match for the
Spitfire VIII."
The Spitfire VIII weighed 7,760 lb, the XIV 8,376 in the above trials.
Figure all up weights without drop tanks to be about 7,480 lb. for the Spit IX and 8,400 lbs. for the Spit XIV.
The historical record is quite clear on this subject. The modern day theorizing as to why the historical record is flawed is less so. Read the historical record or do some calculations and draw you own conclusions.
-
Hi Mw,
>The historical record is quite clear on this subject. The modern day theorizing as to why the historical record is flawed is less so. Read the historical record or do some calculations and draw you own conclusions.
If you'd like to contradict my conclusions, you're invited to do so.
>"The Spitfire XIV is superior above 25,000 and with its better turning characteristics it is more than a match for the
Spitfire VIII."
You're quoting a comparison to the Spitfire XIV to the Spitfire VIII. The Spitfire VIII in question was 280 lbs heavier than the Spitfire IX quoted previously, and it had less power available since its engine was limited to +15 lbs boost, compared to the +18 lbs boost of the Spitfire IX.
Needless to say, both had a negative impact on the Mk VIII's turning capabilities.
>The Spit XIV had a lower stall speed than the Spit IX.
I'm not quite sure where to find that information in the record you quoted, but assuming you're talking about power-on 1-G stall speed, this would merely reflect that the Mk XIV benefits from the Griffon engine's slipstream more than the Mk VIII from the less powerful Merlin's.
Since propeller slipstream is of no benefit in accelerated (high-speed) stalls, the lighter Mk VIII will actually hold the advantage there.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
You're quoting a comparison to the Spitfire XIV to the Spitfire VIII. The Spitfire VIII in question was 280 lbs heavier than the Spitfire IX quoted previously, and it had less power available since its engine was limited to +15 lbs boost, compared to the +18 lbs boost of the Spitfire IX.
I'm pretty certain you've got that the wrong way round.
The Spit VIII had a Merlin 63, running 18lb boost, the Spit XIV was an early prototype running 15lb boost.
-
Hi Nashwan,
>The Spit VIII had a Merlin 63, running 18lb boost, the Spit XIV was an early prototype running 15lb boost.
You seem to be right. The Spitfire VIII was indeed tested against a Griffon 61-engined Spitfire XIV running at +15 lbs boost, while no boost data is given for the Mk VIII so +18 lbs seems a reasonable assumption.
The quoted web site actually refers to four different Spitfire XIVs: JF317 (with a Griffon 61 engine), JF319 (a Mk VIII conversion), RB141 (found to be not representative for operational aircraft), and RB179 (Griffon 65, +18 lbs).
Of these Mk XIVs, only RB179 was accepted as representative for operational aircraft, and compared to the Spitfire IX with the results I quoted above.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
To sum it all up..
How WILL the Spit14 perform then? Please forgive me, but since I am a layman in flight physics and dynamics, the numbers comparison sort of leaves me confused here :)
The WB2.1 Spit14 incident you guys mentioned interests me the most. We all know FM is different among all games, but generally, no matter how different it is, it basically tries to represent the same image. A Spit will turn good in all games, and a P-51 will be always fast. So.. in WB2.1, how did the Spit14 fare?
As I mentioned, in FA2, there were 3 Spitfires, Mk.IX, Mk.V and Mk.XIV. Of these three, of course, the Mk.V did turn the best, but everybody used just Spit14. It out turned every other sort of plane except 109F4, A6M2 Zero and I-16 Ishak. Fighting hoardes of superior turn craft that outran almost everything else was very annoying.
..
:)
[ 12-23-2001: Message edited by: Kweassa ]
-
I'm not quite sure where to find that information in the record you quoted, but assuming you're talking about power-on 1-G stall speed, this would merely reflect that the Mk XIV benefits from the Griffon engine's slipstream more than the Mk VIII from the less powerful Merlin's.
The pilot's manuals for the Spit IX and XIV give the XIV slightly lower power-off stall speeds.
BTW, wasn't the Warbirds 2.xx Spit XIV widely acknowledged as the worst modelled plane in the game?
-
Hi Nashwa,
>The pilot's manuals for the Spit IX and XIV give the XIV slightly lower power-off stall speeds.
Even with the engine idling, the remaining propwash might explain a certain difference.
In the Spitfire XIV pilot's notes, the speed is given as airspeed indicator reading - before any comparison, you'd have to apply a position error correction worth several mph. (Stall speed is unfortunately slightly off the scale in the correction table.) If the position error is different for the Spitfire IX, the same stall speed might result in a different airspeed indicator reading.
>BTW, wasn't the Warbirds 2.xx Spit XIV widely acknowledged as the worst modelled plane in the game?
All I can say is that speed and climb at low level of the Warbirds 2.01 Spitfire XIV matched the JF319 test results fairly well. That turn capability wasn't as good as that of the Spitfire IX was to be expected, so without in-depth testing, I'd say it probably was in the ball park.
If it was widely acknowledged as the worst modeled WB aircraft ever, I'd expect that someone should be able to point out exactly in which way it was modelled badly. That would certainly help to prevent the same mistake from happening in Aces High, too :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Kweassa,
>How WILL the Spit14 perform then? Please forgive me, but since I am a layman in flight physics and dynamics, the numbers comparison sort of leaves me confused here
Here are some basic estimates on the Spitfire XIV performance:
Power has increased but not drag, so it will go faster than the Mk IX.
Power has increased more than weight, so it will climb better than the Mk IX.
Weight has increased but not wing area, so it will not be able to turn as tightly as the Mk IX.
While weight has incrased, so has power, so in slow flat circle turns, the Spitfire XIV perhaps is about equal to the lighter, lower-powered Mk IX.
This last estimate is the only one that involves a certain element of uncertainty. How much more power is needed to overcome the extra weight? I'd guess the power increase might have been about right for the Mk XIV.
>As I mentioned, in FA2, there were 3 Spitfires, Mk.IX, Mk.V and Mk.XIV. Of these three, of course, the Mk.V did turn the best, but everybody used just Spit14. It out turned every other sort of plane except 109F4, A6M2 Zero and I-16 Ishak. Fighting hoardes of superior turn craft that outran almost everything else was very annoying.
As far as axis aircraft were concerned, the Me 109K-4 and the Fw 190D-9 were able to outrun the Spitfire XIV at low altitude, and the Ki-84 was better at around 10000 ft. The Me 109F-4 would outturn it, as would all the Zeros and the Oscar. (The Me 109G-6 and the Fw 190A-4 and A-8 had few options against the Spitfire XIV, but the same could be said in comparison to the P-51.)
So the only axis aircraft that had to worry about the Spitfire XIV were the Me 109G-6 (which was outclassed by the Spitfire IX, too) and the Fw 190A series fighters, which already had a definite Mustang problem. (The P-51 in 2.01 was vastly superior to the Fw 190A.)
Apparently, most Spitfire pilots thought the ability to catch the Focke-Wulfs wasn't attractive enough to sacrifice the better turning abilities of the Mk IX, and stayed with the Mk IX even after the Mk XIV came out in the RPS.
Accordingly, the hoardes were flying Spitfire IX at all times :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)